4 ms·

I don't really see how a father paying for their own child causes crime rates to increase or poorer outcomes than a father not paying for their own child.

diob 4y ago
I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. You're forcing a parent to be involved in a child's life when they don't want to be. The person will likely be a force of evil / detriment / abuse in the child's life. The child will grow up with issues, which may lead to crime, health issues (mental or physical, our mental state greatly impacts us physically), etc. etc. I would much rather pay for them not to be involved than put the child through that. Not only does it prevent issues down the road for society, it is the right thing to do. Saying you don't want to pay is naive. You're paying whether you like it or not. And surprisingly, the pay now is actually cheaper for society in the long run.
- ameister14 4y ago
  > I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Please link a study or studies that shows that children where the father dodged and refused to pay child support had worse outcomes than children where the father paid child support as ordered.
  - diob 4y ago
    Well, I can't do the impossible and conjure up your specific study. But I can point you to a dearth of studies on the outcomes of unwanted children. The most famous is https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-res.... They even revisited it to address criticisms and found the same results. It seems straightforward that forcing something on someone is going to lead to them victimizing someone. And if you think you can prevent it by policing them, I think you'll find it difficult (parents in America and around the world have a lot of leeway with how to treat and raise their children). I grew up in an abusive household, so I can confirm anecdotally some of these things. I made it out alright, my sister unfortunately did not. Two questions if I may: Why do you find it hard to believe? Did you have loving / supportive parents?
    - ameister14 4y ago
      1. In either situation, the child is unwanted. The only difference is money, not time. I find it hard to believe the lack of both money and time is better than the lack of time. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. Now, if it was the difference between no child and a wanted child, that makes sense. But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the difference between a child where the father pays child support and a child where the father does not pay child support and instead the child is supported by state social services. 2. Yes I did. Why do you ask?
      - diob 4y ago
        For 1, I don't understand. What do you mean the only difference is money, not time? Are you suggesting compelling payment but withholding visitation rights, contact with the child, etc? For 2, I ask because I was wondering where your baseline belief in parents starts at.
        ameister14 4y ago
        I now get where the confusion is coming from - custody and child support are two totally different things, legally speaking. I'm only talking about child support, not custody. Whatever the custody arrangement, a person can't walk out on their financial obligation to a child they fathered. This means that yes, even if there is no visitation, the child is still entitled to child support.
        diob 4y ago
        Right. So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. I literally know so many cases like this where the "bad" parent then tortures the child, doesn't feed them or gives them substandard care, etc. etc. The real world kind of sucks. Which is why I'm saying there's no good way to force someone to pay without them taking revenge. I'd rather if they don't want to be involved, let them not be involved. Like, let's say you propose allowing them to cut ties but then child support is higher. Most assholes are going to choose custody with less child support, and just be absolutely fucked up to their kids. That's the real world. And unfortunately, most courts don't care. There are horror stories upon horror stories of being unable to restrict / take away custody from abusive parents.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
It's the same bunch of crappy incentives wherein poorly designed welfare and safety nets incentivize people to work under the table and live crappy lives. Nobody wants to work harder to better their life when a huge fraction of the fruit of such labor gets taken from them. Pick up any sociology book from the 1970s and it'll explain it in detail.

diob 4y ago

I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. You're forcing a parent to be involved in a child's life when they don't want to be. The person will likely be a force of evil / detriment / abuse in the child's life. The child will grow up with issues, which may lead to crime, health issues (mental or physical, our mental state greatly impacts us physically), etc. etc. I would much rather pay for them not to be involved than put the child through that. Not only does it prevent issues down the road for society, it is the right thing to do. Saying you don't want to pay is naive. You're paying whether you like it or not. And surprisingly, the pay now is actually cheaper for society in the long run.

ameister14 4y ago
> I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Please link a study or studies that shows that children where the father dodged and refused to pay child support had worse outcomes than children where the father paid child support as ordered.
- diob 4y ago
  Well, I can't do the impossible and conjure up your specific study. But I can point you to a dearth of studies on the outcomes of unwanted children. The most famous is https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-res.... They even revisited it to address criticisms and found the same results. It seems straightforward that forcing something on someone is going to lead to them victimizing someone. And if you think you can prevent it by policing them, I think you'll find it difficult (parents in America and around the world have a lot of leeway with how to treat and raise their children). I grew up in an abusive household, so I can confirm anecdotally some of these things. I made it out alright, my sister unfortunately did not. Two questions if I may: Why do you find it hard to believe? Did you have loving / supportive parents?
  - ameister14 4y ago
    1. In either situation, the child is unwanted. The only difference is money, not time. I find it hard to believe the lack of both money and time is better than the lack of time. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. Now, if it was the difference between no child and a wanted child, that makes sense. But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the difference between a child where the father pays child support and a child where the father does not pay child support and instead the child is supported by state social services. 2. Yes I did. Why do you ask?
    - diob 4y ago
      For 1, I don't understand. What do you mean the only difference is money, not time? Are you suggesting compelling payment but withholding visitation rights, contact with the child, etc? For 2, I ask because I was wondering where your baseline belief in parents starts at.
      - ameister14 4y ago
        I now get where the confusion is coming from - custody and child support are two totally different things, legally speaking. I'm only talking about child support, not custody. Whatever the custody arrangement, a person can't walk out on their financial obligation to a child they fathered. This means that yes, even if there is no visitation, the child is still entitled to child support.
        diob 4y ago
        Right. So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. I literally know so many cases like this where the "bad" parent then tortures the child, doesn't feed them or gives them substandard care, etc. etc. The real world kind of sucks. Which is why I'm saying there's no good way to force someone to pay without them taking revenge. I'd rather if they don't want to be involved, let them not be involved. Like, let's say you propose allowing them to cut ties but then child support is higher. Most assholes are going to choose custody with less child support, and just be absolutely fucked up to their kids. That's the real world. And unfortunately, most courts don't care. There are horror stories upon horror stories of being unable to restrict / take away custody from abusive parents.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

It's the same bunch of crappy incentives wherein poorly designed welfare and safety nets incentivize people to work under the table and live crappy lives. Nobody wants to work harder to better their life when a huge fraction of the fruit of such labor gets taken from them. Pick up any sociology book from the 1970s and it'll explain it in detail.